Slashdot Mirror

Realize that it would not be in Microsoft's best interests to reform patent laws--do not forget the nice sizeable patent portfolio that they have (including 2 patents of their own for a DRM OS).

No, the likely outcome of this is that MS will settle this out of court for a nice big fat fee from its cash horde, and patents will continue to stifle competition and innovation, and MS will not be delayed in implementing DRM (likely that, as they did with the anti-trust suit, they will most likely continue implementing DRM as this goes along regardless of the court action).

Realize that it would not be in Microsoft's best interests to reform patent laws--do not forget the nice sizeable patent portfolio that they have (including 2 patents of their own for a DRM OS).

No, the likely outcome of this is that MS will settle this out of court for a nice big fat fee from its cash horde, and patents will continue to stifle competition and innovation, and MS will not be delayed in implementing DRM (likely that, as they did with the anti-trust suit, they will most likely continue implementing DRM as this goes along regardless of the court action).

Digital content such as text, video, and music are stored as part of a compressed and encrypted data file, or object, at a client computer, such as a personal home computer. The content is inaccessible to a user until a payment or use authorization occurs. Payment or use authorization occurs via a real-time, transparent authorization process whereby the user enters account or use data at the client computer, the account or use data is transmitted to a payment server computer, the account or use data is preprocessed at the payment server computer and if payment information is required and is present, the payment information is transmitted to a payment authorization center. The payment authorization center approves or rejects the payment transaction, and bills the corresponding account. The authorization center then transmits an authorization signal to the payment server computer indicating whether the transaction was approved and if not, which information was deficient. In response, the payment server computer transmits a token to the client computer, and if the token indicates approval, an installation process is initiated at the client computer whereby the object is activated and locked to the particular client computer. The object can be reopened and reused at any time on that particular computer. If the object is transmitted or copied to a different computer, the required payment or use information must again be tendered for access to the content.

It's too bad Amazon has already applied for a patent on this... (along with the rest of the internet)

Method and system for conducting a discussion relating to an item

In the future you will not be allowed to discuss items (read stuff) on the internet. All your discussions must be limited to non stuff (read old woman gossip).

Infact most of the ideas in this thread are patented or pending a patent (which, we all know, will be granted)...

It is probably a good thing OpenOffice.org has abandoned that integrated desktop UI that the original StarOffice had. If they felt like improving it they could have run afoul of this patent held by Corel: US Patent No. 20030090519

This patent might be something those KParts and Bonobo-UI guys would want to look at, in case this Vector company or someone that buys them goes the profit-by-IP-lawsuit route.

Hint: read the claims and description. The abstract is rather useless.

The technology sounds formidable. Here's the abstract of the patent from
uspto.gov.

An international transaction system for operation over the internet/intranet provides a pre-transactional calculation of all charges involved in any international transaction. Upon the option of the customer, the goods can be viewed on catalogue sheets translated to a language of the customer's choice, and the price provided in a currency selected by the customer. The customer also has the option of initiating the order with automatic credit authorization, generation of an electronic title or commercial invoice and arrangements and payment of shipping charges and any taxes and import/export duties

All the people with small businesses saying they can't afford such technology should relax. This is all about importing/exporting. I doubt small businesses are going to be worried about losing the handful of sales to someone in Timbuctoo.

Anyone with large enough export volumes would rather buy a licensed product than develop one themselves to do all the things specified in the abstract.

If a small business has so much exporting that they need to use software to automate sales - well, you won't be small for long.

The software under patent is complex enough to automate many activities required by the bureaucracy in international trade. That's creditable, not obvious.

"This application claims benefit of Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/033,984 filed Dec. 30, 1996."

I can't believe this patent is going to stand up if it gets tested in court. There has to be prior art out there somewhere, aside from that it should fail the on the "nonobvious" criterion...

What I don't understand is why anyone would spend the time and money to file this patent in the first place. It's totally worthless. First, any sane judge or jury, even in our messed-up system, would probably throw it out as non-obvious. Second, and more importantly, the patent's claims (the only part that really counts) are incredibly limited. Claim 1, which all the others are based on, specifically requires a "a hand-held laser apparatus". If you build a machine to wave the laser around, you're fine. (Yes, some such devices are patented too, but the patents are so specific that it would be easy to design around them.)

Just reading the abstract of Patent # 5,884,282 shows how fucked up the US patent system is. And US is pressurizing EU to introduce similar patent practices. Yuck!

Whenever you even discuss patents, you have to use obfusticated speech. How else do you patent using a laser to play with a cat, but with language like:
"directing an intense coherent beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus to produce a bright highly-focused pattern of light at the intersection of the beam and an opaque surface, said pattern being of visual interest to a cat;"?

First, IANAL.

AFAIK: The USPTO uses databases of inventions both patented and non patented to determine "Prior Art". Things are considered prior art only if the USPTO knows about them. However, prior art and business method patents have come under question and the USPTO is seeking comment on the issue.

Comment info here And here

First, IANAL.

AFAIK: The USPTO uses databases of inventions both patented and non patented to determine "Prior Art". Things are considered prior art only if the USPTO knows about them. However, prior art and business method patents have come under question and the USPTO is seeking comment on the issue.

Comment info here And here

I guess submitting it to USPTO would count as a pretty good backup...
Patent # 5,884,282
Patent # 5,790,426
Both held by Gary B. Robinson aka. the poster of this story ;-)

I guess submitting it to USPTO would count as a pretty good backup...
Patent # 5,884,282
Patent # 5,790,426
Both held by Gary B. Robinson aka. the poster of this story ;-)

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

As far as I can tell from various reports out there, there are enough technical difficulties with cellphone-to-ground service on planes that they are not simply going to allow regular cell phone use:

Ars Technica reports that there are two bans in place: the FAA for flight safety reasons, and the FCC for cellphone network interference reasons. (A cell phone can reach too many towers at once, thus interfering with towers other than the one it's actually communicating with) The USA Today article quoted by the Ars article discusses all this pretty well.

So, companies are trying to come up with a solution. One company, AirCell, has been granted "a patent" (US Pat 6,408,180) for facilitating cell phone use in planes. AirCell has a press release touting their patent and technology. USA Today said Aircell would charge a roaming fee to use their network.

The patent discusses the various methods used to reduce interference with ground stations, like antenna polarization.

It also seems to discuss an additional cell site on the plane itself, that is designed to convince all the passengers' phones to talk to it, so that it can efficiently relay the signals in a non-interfering mannor down to the ground.

It ALSO seems like they talk about redesigned ground sites to facilitate this, so you have to wonder what the involvement of each of the cell phone providers will have to be.

(skimming patents is not easy... I might be wrong, but the images help. In TIFF format: diagram of relay system on the plane, special cell sites vs normal cell sites)

It just hurts to think about the infrastructure investment in all these different, competeing cell technologies in the US. Wouldn't it make lots of sense to just GIVE UP and legislate/regulate a single standard. Say, GSM for example. Works for Europe... :)

- Peter

I don't think Gillette or Bic would start suing people for making razor blades that happened to fit their razor handle. They'd probably try to make their blades better so no one would want to use the cometitions, or they change their business model.

And you'd be wrong. Gillette will sue you if you violate their patents (and even LOOK like their product, let alone interoperate). And they have patents like this one, and this one and many more pertaining to razors. Not to mention Gillette was the company that patented the original safety razor - so they've been at this for a while.

The problem with your analogy is that in Gillette's case they patent the razor blades AND the interface between the two. That means you can't clone their blades, and you can't connect without their handle violating a patent.

Imagine if Ford invents a new way to fill your gas tank. Only licensed gas stations can use this patented nozzle. You'd effectively be paying Ford for a percentage of your gas. Could they stop you from hacking the Explorer? As long as you don't use their IP, probably not. Compatibility is something people expect in their gas tanks, so that will never happen. But most people seem fine with it happening in razors, and ditto on consoles. Consoles obviously can't patent the execution of code, but they can copyright bootloaders and BIOSes.

I don't think Gillette or Bic would start suing people for making razor blades that happened to fit their razor handle. They'd probably try to make their blades better so no one would want to use the cometitions, or they change their business model.

And you'd be wrong. Gillette will sue you if you violate their patents (and even LOOK like their product, let alone interoperate). And they have patents like this one, and this one and many more pertaining to razors. Not to mention Gillette was the company that patented the original safety razor - so they've been at this for a while.

The problem with your analogy is that in Gillette's case they patent the razor blades AND the interface between the two. That means you can't clone their blades, and you can't connect without their handle violating a patent.

Imagine if Ford invents a new way to fill your gas tank. Only licensed gas stations can use this patented nozzle. You'd effectively be paying Ford for a percentage of your gas. Could they stop you from hacking the Explorer? As long as you don't use their IP, probably not. Compatibility is something people expect in their gas tanks, so that will never happen. But most people seem fine with it happening in razors, and ditto on consoles. Consoles obviously can't patent the execution of code, but they can copyright bootloaders and BIOSes.

I don't think Gillette or Bic would start suing people for making razor blades that happened to fit their razor handle. They'd probably try to make their blades better so no one would want to use the cometitions, or they change their business model.

And you'd be wrong. Gillette will sue you if you violate their patents (and even LOOK like their product, let alone interoperate). And they have patents like this one, and this one and many more pertaining to razors. Not to mention Gillette was the company that patented the original safety razor - so they've been at this for a while.

The problem with your analogy is that in Gillette's case they patent the razor blades AND the interface between the two. That means you can't clone their blades, and you can't connect without their handle violating a patent.

Imagine if Ford invents a new way to fill your gas tank. Only licensed gas stations can use this patented nozzle. You'd effectively be paying Ford for a percentage of your gas. Could they stop you from hacking the Explorer? As long as you don't use their IP, probably not. Compatibility is something people expect in their gas tanks, so that will never happen. But most people seem fine with it happening in razors, and ditto on consoles. Consoles obviously can't patent the execution of code, but they can copyright bootloaders and BIOSes.

I don't think Gillette or Bic would start suing people for making razor blades that happened to fit their razor handle. They'd probably try to make their blades better so no one would want to use the cometitions, or they change their business model.

And you'd be wrong. Gillette will sue you if you violate their patents (and even LOOK like their product, let alone interoperate). And they have patents like this one, and this one and many more pertaining to razors. Not to mention Gillette was the company that patented the original safety razor - so they've been at this for a while.

The problem with your analogy is that in Gillette's case they patent the razor blades AND the interface between the two. That means you can't clone their blades, and you can't connect without their handle violating a patent.

Imagine if Ford invents a new way to fill your gas tank. Only licensed gas stations can use this patented nozzle. You'd effectively be paying Ford for a percentage of your gas. Could they stop you from hacking the Explorer? As long as you don't use their IP, probably not. Compatibility is something people expect in their gas tanks, so that will never happen. But most people seem fine with it happening in razors, and ditto on consoles. Consoles obviously can't patent the execution of code, but they can copyright bootloaders and BIOSes.

check out the guy's patent: 6,587,846

Some of the diagrams are interesting.

Sort of leads you to the conclusion that you have to have a philosophical system in order to have ethics. your milage may vary.

One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

Do you have any proof of this? People keep saying it over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually show some numbers to prove. This indicates to me that its a myth. In fact I would guess the opposite is true.

Governmemnt can borrow money cheaper than a private company can. Private companies pay a lot out to their CEO's and other executives. Coporations have as many stupid people in management as the public sector.

NASA *is* inefficient, but is it because of government bureacracy or is it because of corporations ripping them off? It seems like NASA is required to do business with just about every aerospace company in every state so that congress will give them money, because the aerospace bribe (contribute, bribe, same thing, right?) congress to do so. Is this NASA's fault, congress's fault, or the aerospace industries' fault?

And look at all the research that NASA gives away that benefits everyone. Heart monitoring equipment for example. If NASA was a private company that would be patented meaning that we'd pay for the research and then the hospitals (which we pay for) would have to pay the licensing fees to use the technology. How efficient is that?

Really technology is a public good. And the production of public goods is the reason we have government. The private sector can produce public goods with government help, but this causes a lot of needless inefficiency. Oh well, all in the name of capitalism I guess.

But if it requires an atmosphere, then it's not "antigravity"... and that's what it's claimed to be. People like to toss around the term "antigravity" because it seems to discredit established research.

Kinda like "alternative medicine" - First they say your regular doctor doesn't know as much as they do and conventional medicine is a failure. Then they claim their products are 'clinically tested' and 'scientifically proven' to work.

Besides, there are other problems with this device. The lift power they generate is relatively low for their size. They also use the same principle of operation as the ionic breeze(tm) air cleaner thingy (not an endorsement, just an example). Here's a link to the US patent for anyone that wants a better look at how it works. (Gee, does that mean this "invention" is already patented? If it was "invented" in the 1920's, is that prior art?)

I wonder if these "lifters" are prone to "fouling", since they do work on the same principle as those air filters :)
=Smidge=

This patent was filed on December 28, 2001. Version 0.29.a of the fantastic GPL'd instant messenger Fire introduced "Automatic, inline foreign language translation" on December 12, 2001.

I would also imagine that the feature was in CVS and publically downloadable before that.

W

Just what we've all been waiting for, our government approved identity mark.
Tell us, will we be tattoed with it, and if so, will it be on the forehead or the right hand??

(http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1 =P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.ht m&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,878,155.WKU.&OS=PN/5,878,155&R S=PN/5,878,155)

If you don't believe it, go to the United States Patent Office website and search for APPROVED patent number 5,878,155
and or this, "Method for verifying human identity during electronic sale transactions"

Okay, first, there's no "judge". The article (obliquely) refers to the fact that Hormel is trying to cancel Spam Arrest's trademark applications. See, for instance, this record at the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. These are administrative hearings with a panel and are not binding on any federal court. They are merely binding on the USPTO's own registration process.

Second, people are misunderstanding genericism. The key is whether the term at issue is generic for the goods or services for which the term is registered. Thus, you can't register PENCIL for pencils, but you sure can for vacuum cleaners. Whether the term is generic for other goods and services is not strictly relevant- one of the strongest trademarks in the world for beverages happens to be generic for the residue of coal left after destructive distillation. You all hear stories about THERMOS becoming generic for thermally-insulated bottles though failure to educate the public that THERMOS was a brand of thermally-insulated bottles, but now you're talking about the equivalent of astronomer's frequent references to exploding stars rendering a car brand generic- it just doesn't work that way.

Hormel should have enforced their trademark much earler to stop the alternative usage of the word

This line of thought is also way off for the same kind of reasons. When exactly did Hormel begin allowing use of the term SPAM by others to distinguish the source of goods or services? When did they begin ignore use of the term SPAM for *any item purchasable by a consumer*? They didn't.

So, nonetheless, I assume someone will persist in believing SPAM has somehow lost trademark significance through reference to unwanted email. Even if this were the case, it's yet another argument in favor of cancelling Spam Arrest's trademark registrations- Spam Arrest certainly use a generic term in their name if either of the parties do.

I can't believe Hormel will have any trouble convincing the TTAB that their mark is famous and entitled to a wide berth on the trademark register. Too well known, too well enforced, too long a period of time in use....

Wizards of the Coast was granted patent number 5,662,332 on September 2nd, 1997.

Here is the abstract from the Patent Office:
Provided herein is a novel method of game play and game components that in one embodiment are in the form of trading cards (10, 12, 40, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64). However, the game components may take other forms, such as a board game, or the game may be played in different media, such as electronic games, video games, computer games, and interactive network. In one version, the game components comprise energy or mana cards 40 and command or spell cards (10, 12, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64) having commands or spells associated therewith that utilize the energy to enable a player to attack, defend and modify the effect of other mana cards, spell cards, and the fundamental rules of play. The goal of the game is to reduce the life points of other players to a level below one. In this game of strategy and chance, players construct their own library of cards, preferably from trading cards, and play their library or deck of cards against the deck of cards of an opposing player. Cards may be obtained from retail outlets, trading with other players or collectors, and winning cards at games and tournaments.

Isn't one supposed to check for this kind of stuff prior to creation? I just started my own business and spent significant time on the patent/trademark website.

What are prime numbers useful for in daily life?


Searching 1976 to present...


Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
"prime number": 1238 patents.

Akami have their own patents, notably 6,502,125 which will likely cover what they do. The application postdates the subject patent, but the grant predates it. Plenty for the lawyers to bill on.

Well, the first public release of squid 1.0.0 was if 1996 according to the Changelog>

That date appears to be prior to the patent application

Well, the first public release of squid 1.0.0 was if 1996 according to the Changelog>

That date appears to be prior to the patent application

The patent is at Delphion (free registration required) and the USPTO. Paul Vixie is listed as an inventor but probably has no ownership rights, or even the ability to collect on royalties. So don't lynch him yet...

The first base (or independent) claim is:

1. A method for transferring information via the Internet, comprising the steps of:
   • intercepting a message from an Internet user directed to a content provider address;
   • determining whether or not the message is an information request;
   • sending the message to the Internet without being affected if the message is not an information request;
   • determining whether or not said information request relates to a content provider address having a corresponding alternative address, said alternative address providing at least part of the information provided at said content provider address; and
   • directing said information request to said corresponding alternative address, if existing, or sending said information request to the Internet without being affected, if not.

Doesn't sound much like my understanding of how Akamai works (I didn't think Akamai "intercepted" requests -- the origin servers actually pointed to the cache servers in their img src tags). It does sound an awful lot like a transparent proxy however.

There's 36 claims, but only 3 are independent -- the rest are derived from those 3 (dependent claims). It's only the claims that are worth reading and worth worrying about. Press releases, abstracts and summaries are all irrelevant to what a patent actually covers. I find them more confusing than useful.

Let's concentrate on the 3 independent claims then. Here's the other 2:

• 15. A system for transferring information via the Internet, comprising:

  • first means for intercepting a message from an Internet user directed to a content provider address;
  • second means for determining whether or not the message is an information request;
  • third means for sending the message to the Internet without being affected if the message is not an information request;
  • fourth means for determining whether or not said information request relates to a content provider address having a corresponding alternative address, said alternative address providing at least part of the information provided at said content provider address; and
  • fifth means for directing said information request to said corresponding alternative address, if such a corresponding alternative address exists, or sending said information request to the Internet without being affected, if not.

• 36. A method for efficiently delivering cached information to Internet users, comprising the steps of:

  • intercepting a message from an Internet user directed to a content provider, the message requesting specific information;
  • determining whether or not the message relates to a content provider address having a corresponding alternative address, the corresponding alternative address providing at least part of the information provided at the content provider address;
  • determining whether or not the specific information is within the at least part of the information provided at the corresponding alternative address; and
  • providing the at least part of the information to the Internet user, if the specific information is within the at least part of the information, or sending the message to the Internet, if not.

As you can see, the differences between these claims are very subtle. I'd need to spend more time reading those claims to understand

Here...

The patent

I don't see any *intellectual* property in US. There are many properties there, but none are really intellectual. Just look what their goverment is doing regarding so called IP, or better check how is intellectual their president, for example.

Come on, guys. Netflix are competing with a very large and not-so-gentle adversary, Walmart.

This doesn't follow from the evidence. Walmart only recently announced that they'd be entering this arena. From the patent it shows that Netflix filed for this patent in April of 2000, over 3 years ago.

And from reading the terms in the patent, it's obvious that they're trying to capitalize on being associated with "the Internet" rather than actually patenting something heretofore unknown. There's plenty of prior art.

Also note that item 15 of the "Claims" section specifically states renting games, so it appears they will be going after gaming sites which do this (one was mentioned in a previous post).

Other sections differentiate between "by mail" and "by a delivery agent" so it appears they're also targeting electronic delivery.

If you disagree with the entire concept of IP, then we are really coming at this from two different directions.

However, the same arguments that you are making about stifling creativity and scientific advance were made 20 years ago when the courts ruled that you could patent a living organism. Look what has happened since then- there has been an explosion of scientific advancement in the biotech and pharmaceuticals industries. These patents were an important ingredient in that growth.

Sure, our patent system isn't perfect, but I think our IP laws are partly responsible for our technological advancements this century.

Here is an idea (for /. in general, not just for you). Instead of just complaining about how horrible the USPTO is, why don't you make some efforts to change it? There are Patent Examiner jobs open, including jobs in Computer Science and engineering. For an unemployed /.-er that is convinced he could do a better job examining patents, thats a win-win situation.

Here is a link to the patent. It doesn't cover just DVD rentals. It covers a "method for renting items to customers."

Well, that pretty much writes off any small inventor. If you have to pour $X into R&D to get a patent, you've basically walled off a class of innovators from ever bringing their ideas to market.

I'm more concerned with the small inventors written off because they didn't want to pour $X into DC&H [Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe].

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) strongly recommend that all prospective applicants retain the services of a registered patent attorney or patent agent to prepare and prosecute their applications." - US PTO FAQ

Since the PDF linked above appears to be slashdotted, you might try here for the full patent. They make some pretty broad claims and the patent appears to cover renting most anything and refers to games specifically.

There are positions open at the USPTO. I hear daily about how many /.'s don't have jobs. Well here you go, so you can make a difference. The only way to change the system is do something...

Here's some more info: Netflix Issued Patent on Subscription Rental Service and complete copy of the patent (PDF). You can also search for patent # 6584450 on the US Patent office website.

Oops!. Here is the link for the patent for toast

"Windows", since it has basically lost its trademark?

When did they lose their trademark? I did a search on USPTO and they still seem to have dozens of Windows trademarks including - Windows Mobile, several for Windows XP, and even just plain Windows. That's not to be confused with This Windows which relates to healthcare.

"Windows", since it has basically lost its trademark?

When did they lose their trademark? I did a search on USPTO and they still seem to have dozens of Windows trademarks including - Windows Mobile, several for Windows XP, and even just plain Windows. That's not to be confused with This Windows which relates to healthcare.

"Windows", since it has basically lost its trademark?

When did they lose their trademark? I did a search on USPTO and they still seem to have dozens of Windows trademarks including - Windows Mobile, several for Windows XP, and even just plain Windows. That's not to be confused with This Windows which relates to healthcare.